Regarding Kan’s involvement in the crisis, Tsunehisa said the Prime Minister’s micro-management distracted from the unfolding disaster: “The highest commander [at the plant (Masao Yoshida)] had to take command of the power station at the height of confusion, but he had his time taken away with interrogatory conversations [with Kan and Nuclear Crisis Minister Goshi Hosono].” When pressed about his own involvement, Tsunehisa insisted that TEPCO’s President and Vice-Presidents, not he, were responsible for making decisions. During a news conference following the testimony, Kiyoshi Kurokawa, the Commission Chairman, said, “I believe [today’s session] shed light on TEPCO’s lack of a sense of crisis as an organization handling nuclear power…Katsumata kept avoiding giving clear remarks on specific matters.”

The panel is continuing to explore whether or not TEPCO tried to evacuate its entire staff during the worst hours of the Fukushima crisis, a move that would have exponentially worsened conditions and led to an even greater nuclear catastrophe. TEPCO Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata insists that the utility never had plans to abandon the Daiichi plant. But reports from other government officials, including then-head of the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI), Banri Kaieda, and Yukio Edano, former Chief Cabinet Secretary who is currently head of METI, conflict with Katsumata’s testimony. The government failed to keep minutes of the meetings that transpired as the disaster unfolded, making it difficult to determine the real story.

The Japan Atomic Power Co (JAPC), operator of the Tsuruga power plant in Fukui Prefecture, has finally agreed to conduct studies on fault lines that lay directly below the plant’s reactors, placing it at risk of a nuclear catastrophe if a major earthquake were to occur. The move comes more than four years after experts first pointed out in 2008 that the faults might move in unison, resulting in a devastating earthquake. Both JAPC and NISA ignored those warnings, even though they were issued repeatedly by Mitsuhisa Watanabe, a seismic specialist at Tokyo University. Watanabe asks, “Why did they fail to conduct the survey for such a long time on something that can so easily be understood by visiting the spot? It’s not academic research, but an argument for safety. The plant should be decommissioned right away,” he warned. The Director of Safety at NISA’s Seismic Safety Office, Masaru Kobayashi, has now admitted, “I should’ve ordered a survey much earlier.”

A commission working within the Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) that has been studying the nation’s growing supply of spent nuclear fuel has presented three options for its disposal. The group said that the most cost-effective means of disposal is to bury the fuel; in addition, that option reduces the chance that terrorists could steal plutonium and construct a nuclear bomb from it. However, some proponents of the Japanese nuclear fuel cycle want to reprocess plutonium from the spent fuel, in order to produce so-called mixed-oxide fuel, or MOX, which combines plutonium and uranium. Members also said that postponing the decision—while simultaneously stopping fuel reprocessing at the Rokkasho plant in Aomori Prefecture—is also a possibility.

Local officials in Fukushima Prefecture and other areas are struggling to deal with over 32,000 tons of radioactive sludge from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, which is sitting in storage sites but has not yet been processed. Some facilities may run out of storage space within the next month. Although the sludge is legally supposed to be processed by municipal waste treatment centers, local residents are opposed because of concerns about radiation.

The new guidelines were drawn up after soliciting heavy input from the nuclear industry and its powerful lobbying association, the Nuclear Energy Institute. Industry officials are praising the new changes, but Cheryl L. Chubb, an emergency planner at the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, said, “If it were me, I would evacuate” even without official go-ahead or if she fell within the new, reduced evacuation zone. Those who live further than two miles from a plant will be urged to “shelter in place” and not flee the area—even if there are large radiation releases. Jim Riccio, nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace US, sharply criticized the revisions. “You need to be practicing for a worst-case, rather than a non-event,” pointing out that in the case of a nuclear disaster, radiation will most likely leak into the atmosphere and place residents at risk. Approximately 40% of all Americans, or 120 million people, live within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor.

If TEPCO followed the advice of seismic experts they would have spent thousands instead of millions let alone the lives and livelihood of the residents. It is truly amazing that Japan had 9723 earthquakes in 2011. These articles have truly educated me. Please keep up the great work. Thank you Greenpeace.